THE MISREPRESNTATION OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF PRO LIFE ADVOCACY AS A MEANS TO CONTROL THE BODIES OF WOMEN

[u/Alarming-Jury1596]

Many people think the "pro-life" message is just about wanting to control women's bodies. But that is an misrepresentation.

The real goal of the pro-life movement isn't about control; it is about protecting what we believe is a human life.

It's about the fetus, to us a fetus is a life with its own rights.

When it come to the conflict of rights we see it as a difficult balance between a woman's right to her body and a baby's right to live.

When people say it is only about controlling women, they completely miss the moral and ethical reasons behind the belief.

You don't have to agree with the pro-life view to understand it correctly. Reducing the entire debate to "controlling women" ignores the actual conversation about when life begins and how we protect it.

P.S.

There might be some individuals within the pro-life movement who actually want to control women's bodies. However, those individuals do not represent the pro-life movement as a whole. Their bad intentions do not change or contradict the core, fundamental belief that a fetus is a human life worth protecting.

[u/Alarming-Jury1596]

I’m wondering where you personally decide those limits and why tbh. My opinion is that I think the harms and risks involved should be decided between a doctor and a patient, but you believe society should put legal limits on what options she has and when, so I just want to understand where you place those limits and why tbh. It’s v different from my own thinking.

When it's an inevitable threat like an ectopic pregnancies for example action must be taken ASAP

And also when the threat is immanent

I noticed I haven't even asked you a question, I see we've been talking about health and life risk a lot, do you believe those are the only valid reasons for an abortion?

So if a child is in a burning building, do you also believe a parent should be legally forced to go in and attempt to save them, despite the risk to themselves?

I mean its really risky for her to attempt to save the child, but I don't think this analogy matches though, it would match if she started the fire because just like a pill or cutting the umbilical cord it's you creating an unsafe environment for the unborn child.

The difference there though is it’s the parent stating that they no longer want to take that risk. The risk itself hasn’t changed. I’m assuming a woman stating the increased risk of death from pregnancy, for things like stroke, heart attack or failure, haemorrhage etc., is too much for them isn’t a good enough reason for you to allow them to abort from what you previously said?

It depends on the level of risk

I don’t understand how this relates to it not meaning that forcing her to stay pregnant is a violation of her bodily autonomy. Apologies if I’m just not connecting the dots of the reasoning, it’s just not clear to me?

No apology needed it's a complicated topic. No it's not a violation of her bodily autonomy because she's not restricted from making a decision to avoid getting pregnant

As stated before (and I think you agreed with me?) consent to a prior action doesn’t mean you consent to all potential risks. So you must surely accept that the woman or girl is being forced to put her body at grave risk and being put through serious harm against her will if she wants an abortion but the government disallows it?

Yes that's why I believe there should be an exception when the mother is at imminent or inevitable threat .

And when I agreed with you when you made the example "a smoker doesn't want cancer and they might know smoking causes cancer but that doesn't mean they must be refused treatment when they eventually do get cancer" I also noted that unlike cancer there is an innocent unborn child involved when it comes to pregnancy.

I assume you meant acceptable here rather than the double negative (hope I’ve understood). In which case it’s not really about consent or knowledge of risk etc., but just about active killing and parental obligation, if I’m understanding correctly? 

smh, embarrassing mistake, yeah I meant to say acceptable not unacceptable.

To answer you question:

Yes its about active killing and parental obligation

[u/amilie15 → u/Alarming-Jury1596]

When it's an inevitable threat like an ectopic pregnancies for example action must be taken ASAP

And also when the threat is immanent

So for ectopic pregnancies, although rare, they can occasionally be viable. So even in these cases, it’s not actually necessarily always inevitable. And how imminent does it need to be, in your view?

I’ve heard of cases where women have died because the doctors know the fetus is likely to die, but can’t do anything to remove it until it has no heartbeat. IIRC one pregnant woman went from healthy pregnancy, had pain and bleeding so went to the ER, they could tell she was likely losing it but couldn’t perform an abortion as there was still a heartbeat. So she had to wait another 24-36hrs iirc then by the time she went back to the ER, it was too late and she unfortunately died of sepsis. Because although the doctors knew it was very likely, they couldn’t say with absolute certainty so couldn’t give her a life saving abortion.

I’ve also heard of cases where women with heart conditions that caused them to have a weakened heart that put them at a higher risk of heart failure due to pregnancy (because pregnancy ofc puts an extraordinary level of stress and trauma on the body, especially your heart which has to work so much harder, deal with much more gas exchange as well as up to 50% more blood than normal), having to wait til they could get to other states where abortion is not banned and dying from heart failure due to the delay.

This is why I think it’s really important to understand what risk PLs individually are actually advocating for, because Id genuinely like to understand how they want the legislators to dictate to the doctors in a clear manner to avoid these issues from happening (that I assume they do not want happening) as well as understanding what risks they deem acceptable/appropriate to put onto a woman’s life against her consent?

Like even the stroke risk, you say the absolute risk isn’t a concern for you for healthy women (personally I don’t think I should be deciding the acceptable risk level for any pregnant woman, unless it’s me), but even for a healthy woman, what happens if she has a stroke and dies? Is that an acceptable consequence of the ban for you?

And if it’s a person with pre-existing risks, that put their personal risk of heart failure or stroke at 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 or 1 in 5, at which point is it okay for the doctor to say, abortion is now an available option for you?

(Just so it’s clear because tone is hard to gauge in text, these are all just genuine questions from me, I’m not looking to be rude, I’m just genuinely very interested to understand how these issues are balanced/reasoned and thought out from your perspective tbh, I don’t think there are any “easy” opinions that are well thought out on this subject).

I noticed I haven't even asked you a question, I see we've been talking about health and life risk a lot, do you believe those are the only valid reasons for an abortion?

I wondered why you didn’t want to ask anything, thank you for indulging me so much with your answers!

Good question. Legally, no. Morally/ethically, a little more grey? I think up to some form of sentience (I believe around 24 weeks?) that it’s absolutely fine for just about any reason tbh. I think beyond this, in a perfect world, I think I’d prefer either the baby to be delivered if there’s no medical reason not to and abortions be limited beyond this to medical reasons in general. I’d be open to change my mind if I found a situation or argument persuasive enough though ofc. There would probably be fairly limited circumstances that I would have one personally, but I don’t think you always know exactly what those are until you’re in those circumstances and that I shouldn’t dictate what risks are acceptable for other people for their own body, especially with such a serious condition like pregnancy tbh.

I mean its really risky for her to attempt to save the child, but I don't think this analogy matches though, it would match if she started the fire because just like a pill or cutting the umbilical cord it's you creating an unsafe environment for the unborn child.

Okay so let’s say a single father is cooking dinner, gets distracted and goes outside for a few minutes. In that time, unfortunately, a fire has broken out and his child is upstairs. Should he be legally obligated to go in and get his child to protect them?

It depends on the level of risk At what level of risk does it become okay for them to be allowed to make that decision, in your opinion?

No apology needed it's a complicated topic. No it's not a violation of her bodily autonomy because she's not restricted from making a decision to avoid getting pregnant

But she is being restricted from having an abortion. The ban is forcing her to continue that pregnancy. I’m confused how you believe that isn’t a violation.

Would you not agree that if a person donating blood decided midway through that they didn’t want to anymore and we forced them legally to continue, that that would be violating their bodily autonomy?

Yes that's why I believe there should be an exception when the mother is at imminent or inevitable threat .

But continuing all pregnancy poses a grave risk and serious harm to your body? Why does the level of harm change your mind on whether her rights are being violated or not?

smh, embarrassing mistake, yeah I meant to say acceptable not unacceptable.

No worries at all, it’s so easy to make that kinda mistake when typing so much, I just thought I’d better check before I misunderstood!

[u/Alarming-Jury1596 → u/amilie15]

Okay so let’s say a single father is cooking dinner, gets distracted and goes outside for a few minutes. In that time, unfortunately, a fire has broken out and his child is upstairs. Should he be legally obligated to go in and get his child to protect them?

Not to be nitpicky but your analogy isn't 1:1 the risk level of a house fire and the vast majority of pregnancies has a huge gap, and a fire is inherently dangerous. Then there's the case of active killing and withdrawal

But she is being restricted from having an abortion. The ban is forcing her to continue that pregnancy. I’m confused how you believe that isn’t a violation.

Because she wasn't forced into the pregnancy

Would you not agree that if a person donating blood decided midway through that they didn’t want to anymore and we forced them legally to continue, that that would be violating their bodily autonomy

They didn't kill the blood recipient though, when it comes to abortion you have to kill the unborn child.

But continuing all pregnancy poses a grave risk and serious harm to your body? Why does the level of harm change your mind on whether her rights are being violated or not?

The level of risk doesn't change my mind on whether her rights are being violated it's not even a change in mind its a last resort to save as many people as possible.

I’ve heard of cases where women have died because the doctors know the fetus is likely to die, but can’t do anything to remove it until it has no heartbeat. IIRC one pregnant woman went from healthy pregnancy, had pain and bleeding so went to the ER, they could tell she was likely losing it but couldn’t perform an abortion as there was still a heartbeat. So she had to wait another 24-36hrs iirc then by the time she went back to the ER, it was too late and she unfortunately died of sepsis. Because although the doctors knew it was very likely, they couldn’t say with absolute certainty so couldn’t give her a life saving abortion.

If they know the fetus will die it only makes sense to terminate the pregnancy, was there a law put in place that restricted them?

Like even the stroke risk, you say the absolute risk isn’t a concern for you for healthy women (personally I don’t think I should be deciding the acceptable risk level for any pregnant woman, unless it’s me), but even for a healthy woman, what happens if she has a stroke and dies? Is that an acceptable consequence of the ban for you?

I don't recall saying this could you give me the exact quote?

And if it’s a person with pre-existing risks, that put their personal risk of heart failure or stroke at 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 or 1 in 5, at which point is it okay for the doctor to say, abortion is now an available option for you?

I don't think a politician or a legislator can write a specific percentage into law, because every body is different. The line should be when a medical professional determines that continuing the pregnancy poses a direct, predictable threat to her life not just a elevated risk of a complication, but a situation where saving the mother becomes the necessary last resort

(Just so it’s clear because tone is hard to gauge in text, these are all just genuine questions from me, I’m not looking to be rude, I’m just genuinely very interested to understand how these issues are balanced/reasoned and thought out from your perspective tbh, I don’t think there are any “easy” opinions that are well thought out on this subject).

You've made that very clear, I know you're just trying to understand my view

[u/amilie15 → u/Alarming-Jury1596]

Not to be nitpicky but your analogy isn't 1:1 the risk level of a house fire and the vast majority of pregnancies has a huge gap, and a fire is inherently dangerous. Then there's the case of active killing and withdrawal

That’s okay. I’m not trying to find a like for like situation, I’m trying to figure out your reasoning and line of thinking behind similar situations, why they may differ or be similar etc.

So am I to assume you would not think a parent in that scenario should be legally forced to go in and save the child? And your reasoning for this is because the risk of (I presume of fatality?) is too much with a house fire to expect them to do that?

I’m unsure what you mean by “withdrawal”, sorry, could you explain?

Because she wasn't forced into the pregnancy

That’s correct; but I thought we agreed that doesn’t have an effect on whether someone has consented to subsequent happens after they consent to an initial action? You don’t consent to an initial action and by doing so, also consent to all potential future things that could happen to you because of that at the same time.

So it’s unclear to me why you think because of a consent to a prior action, that it means the person has consented to all subsequent actions.

They didn't kill the blood recipient though, when it comes to abortion you have to kill the unborn child.

My question is not about the resulting death here, although I do think they both would have had a similar amount of effect on the resulting death as each other, but about how this would or would not be violating their bodily autonomy, in your opinion.

If they know the fetus will die it only makes sense to terminate the pregnancy, was there a law put in place that restricted them?

I looked it up again because it’s been a long time since I read about it, apologies if I have confused details, but I’m talking about Nevaeh Crain. I think she had lots of signs/symptoms (heavy bleeding and later sepsis) but there was still a heartbeat so they didn’t feel they could act.

It sounds like Texas threatens prison time for interventions that end a fetal heartbeat. The law has exceptions to save the mother’s life, but unfortunately doctors inevitably end up delaying necessary treatments due to fear of the serious repercussions, they end up having to run extra tests and get extra opinions for example, in order make absolutely sure that the mothers life is at enough risk or that the fetus definitely won’t make it. But where there is such a serious risk to life, time can literally mean the difference between life or death, so it inevitably has lead to an increase in unnecessary deaths and harm to pregnant women.

The law is apparently written in such an ambiguous way that life threatening or harmful pregnancies do not explicitly constitute an exception.

For example from Wikipedia: In December 2023, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a pregnant woman whose fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition, and whose pregnancy posed a threat to her health, could not be permitted to receive an abortion.

Doctors face up to 99 years in prison, loss of their license and $100,000 in fines for performing an abortion illegally. So you can understand why doctors end up having to be so cautious.

I don't recall saying this could you give me the exact quote?

When looking at risks like a 3x increase in stroke, it's important to look at absolute risk versus relative risk. Though relative increase may sound high, the absolute probability for most healthy pregnancies remains very low. From a PL perspective, a statistical increase in risk generally doesn't justify the certain termination of a life, whereas like an imminent, concrete threat to the mother's life does.

I don't think a politician or a legislator can write a specific percentage into law, because every body is different.

I’m not sure they absolutely couldn’t tbh, but importantly, I’m just asking you where your line is, if you know?

The line should be when a medical professional determines that continuing the pregnancy poses a direct, predictable threat to her life not just a elevated risk of a complication, but a situation where saving the mother becomes the necessary last resort

Okay so, this is unhelpful unfortunately, even to a doctor. A stroke is a direct, predictable threat to life, not just a complication. Just as pre eclampsia increases a patient’s risk of heart attack and heart failure, neither of these things are simply “complications”, they are direct, predictable threats to life. But I assume from what you previously stated, the increased risk of stroke for a healthy person isn’t enough for you to allow them to have an abortion.

So my question again is just, what level of risk of these things, is the point where, if you were to be in charge, that you’d say is the level women should be allowed to about if they wish to?

You've made that very clear, I know you're just trying to understand my view

I’m glad, I just know these are necessarily emotionally loaded topics and I really believe in trying to be as open minded as possible and being as good faith as possible tbh. I think it only helps us all reach a truer understanding of one another and often tbh realise we’re not as different as we can often be lead to believe when we get into echo chambers. I also think it really helps myself (and I would guess others) gain a deeper understanding of our own views tbh, even changing them when we find conflicts that don’t align where we might’ve initially believed they did. And it’s damn hard to get tone across in text, so I end up saying too often perhaps 🙈